Because, in absence of written rules, he (Cameron) laid them off himself while calling for the whole bloody referendum.
Before the vote, it was supposed to be binding. After, not so. I'm not complaining, but if it's not moving the posts, what is ?
All the doom and gloom campaign of the PM was all about the fact that a Leave vote would lead ineluctably to UK exiting EU, and that he would himself activate article 50, immediately. I'm willing to forget that, but I guess some people are bound to remember ! Including the ones who voted for Brexit and still want to get it, even if their voices are currently drowned by the Stay uproar.
Do you have a source for him saying that beforehand? I poked around some, but it's now hard to find anything from before the vote.
He did apparently say a Leave vote would be "irrevocable", but that's a little different.
Here it is. House of commons, 22 februry 2016 : "If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away."
Complete text here (column 24). It also went into a nice, manual setting the process for UK withdrawal. Directly from the horse's mouth.
It can't get more official than that...
EDIT : I'm not complaining, but it really seems that Cameron saw fit to tweak the rules and forget some of his previous statements. I don't know why (getting back at BoJo, lack of stomach, ploy to put some pressure on EU or damage control), your guess is as good as mine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for all that you do!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
My understanding is that (amusingly) England have to ask for Scotland's consent and Scotland can refuse to grant it, but that the term "consent" doesn't actually mean anything since it has literally no legal effect, no matter how the Scottish parliament responds. My reading (admittedly cursory) was that some overexcited journalists thought Scotland might have some kind of veto power, but that there weren't any* lawyers who thought so.
* With the usual lawyer caveat that they can argue for or against pretty much anything.
There is some angst over this issue. It very much looks like Scotland has to pass the separation from the EU as law as a devolved issue. It can refuse. Britain can overrule the Scottish decision if it chooses, but the only 100% legal way of doing that is to repeal the Scotland Act which allows devolved power to Scotland. Effectively, it would have to abolish the Scottish Assembly. That would spark an enormous constitutional crisis in the UK. It would also drive the chances of Scottish independence towards probable. Devolution - giving Scotland much more autonomy but not outright independence - took the wind out of the sails of full independence in the 1990s and this would put it right back in.
I saw nothing that indicated the referendum was actually binding and never imagined that with or without a nonbinding referendum the PM could unilaterally withdraw the UK from the EU. Do you think he could do so without the referendum?
The referendum is nonbinding in itself, but Cameron had promised that its results would be respected by the government. That's been taken to mean that the results would be accepted as binding, unless it was supersceded by a second referendum (now off the table) or a general election result where the winning party had campaigned on a platform of remaining part of the EU.
Just completely ignoring the results would be highly controversial. Both Labour and the Tories would think hard about doing that, because they would hand an enormous propaganda coup to UKIP if they tried and would suffer the consequences at the next election.
Thank you for all that you do!
indeed thank you for keeping us on course. I get that this is history in the making and that it calls to the historian in all of us, but we need to stay on the straight and narrow path here.
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
There is some angst over this issue. It very much looks like Scotland has to pass the separation from the EU as law as a devolved issue. It can refuse. Britain can overrule the Scottish decision if it chooses, but the only 100% legal way of doing that is to repeal the Scotland Act which allows devolved power to Scotland. Effectively, it would have to abolish the Scottish Assembly. That would spark an enormous constitutional crisis in the UK. It would also drive the chances of Scottish independence towards probable. Devolution - giving Scotland much more autonomy but not outright independence - took the wind out of the sails of full independence in the 1990s and this would put it right back in....My understanding is that (amusingly) England have to ask for Scotland's consent and Scotland can refuse to grant it, but that the term "consent" doesn't actually mean anything since it has literally no legal effect, no matter how the Scottish parliament responds. My reading (admittedly cursory) was that some overexcited journalists thought Scotland might have some kind of veto power, but that there weren't any* lawyers who thought so.
* With the usual lawyer caveat that they can argue for or against pretty much anything.
interesting. Thank you.
Well, that's certainly stronger than I'd found, but it's still not quite: "The referendum requires me to activate Article 50".
Based strictly on that, I would expect him to begin the process of pushing it through Parliament and dealing with any potential hurdles, like the Scottish veto.
If you read a little more of the context around it, it's more aimed at...
I don't see how to read "shouldn't ignore the vote" in "no governement can ignore (such a democratic decision)", without a huge dose of spin doctoring...
Anyway, everyone and his dog, in EU and in UK, had been said and understood before the vote that a Leave vote would lead HMG to launch the process at once/right away (doom and gloom, my hands would be tied, etc.). As far as I know, talk about a preliminary vote by Parliament only appeared afterwards (I can't prove a negative, though).
I'm happy with that, it's probably better that way. I'm just pointing out the fact that HMG/Cameron refused at the last moment to burn that bridge and left to the next PM the burden of the activation of article 50.
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
That is very interesting. Do you have a source so I can dig further (and then pee myself laughing at how BoJo just got pwned)?
(numbers from Peter Temin's paper on Roman prices).
Amethyst used to be considered a precious gem. Then they found so much of it in south america that you can buy it at a hobby shop instead of a jewelry store.
You base a currency on gold, someone finds a cheap way to extract it from sea water or asteroid mine it and you're hosed.
That's true - but it's still a more solid currency base than paper. (whether or not you consider that to be a good thing)
A bigger historical thing was actually when the S America silver was discovered. (since there was silver coinage) That actually made trips to China more profitable around then.
Silver coin had been devalued in Europe to around 12-1 to gold in Europe, while in China it was still the 10-1 it had been beforehand. So Europeans would haul silver to China and get 10-1 for Chinese trade goods and then get more silver at the lower 12-1 ratio. (Adam Smith goes into detail in Wealth of Nations.)
That's fine. I just wanted to disagree with the idea that having precious metal in the currency "prevents" governments from devaluing the currency. In the age of precious metal currencies there were innumerable devaluations by various governments. The fact that it happened in the past on countless occasions militates against the idea that it would be impossible in the future.
Others can no doubt talk more about the various non-debasement-related economic shocks, often related either to the rise of new metal sources or the loss of old ones.
(Although I will say that Temin's argument re: the 6000x silver inflation in Roman Egypt had to do more with demographics, politics, and macroeconomics than with silver content of the coinage or with the supply of silver itself)
|
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
I am quite surprised to read this as I read yesterday in the news that a spokesman for the EU declared that the 4 pillars were indivisible and that free trade could only come with freedom of movement
Also I do not see at all what France would gain from this. We already have trouble dealing with the migrants who want to reach the UK when it is still part of the EU and this would make the situation even worse. Also Germany is far more likely to get the City's financial activities than France is
Finally, contrary to what many Brexiters think, the main objective of the EU, or even France, is NOT to leave the UK in shambles
That just would not be good for business, nor for peace
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
I am quite surprised to read this as I read yesterday in the news that a spokesman for the EU declared that the 4 pillars were indivisible and that free trade could only come with freedom of movement
Also I do not see at all what France would gain from this. We already have trouble dealing with the migrants who want to reach the UK when it is still part of the EU and this would make the situation even worse. Also Germany is far more likely to get the City's financial activities than France is
Finally, contrary to what many Brexiters think, the main objective of the EU, or even France, is NOT to leave the UK in shambles
That just would not be good for business, nor for peace
I don't know why you are surprised...as I've stated no less than two or three times the EU would try to do something like that and it's possible for Britain to get what it wants through negotiation.
Sure, it kills some of the economic banking platform in London...but if I were the British government...I'd SERIOUSLY consider that deal...I think that may be the best they are going to get...and it's actually pretty good for them from my viewpoint (slanted as it may be).
Rumours from the EU meeting today that Hollande suggested a compromise: giving Britain a free trade deal in return for limits on migration, but that the EU should withdraw the financial passport, removing the ability of the City of London to trade freely in stocks and capital in the EU. Paris, Amsterday, Frankfurt and Dublin would then benefit as they take over various EU finance roles currently handled by London.
Quite clever, since it gives the UK government what the people voted for (an end to EU immigration) and it apparently punishes only "the nasty big banks." Of course, it would completely undermine the economic foundation that Britain is currently built on so it should be laughed out of the building, but I can see it appealing to some.
There is some angst over this issue. It very much looks like Scotland has to pass the separation from the EU as law as a devolved issue. It can refuse. Britain can overrule the Scottish decision if it chooses, but the only 100% legal way of doing that is to repeal the Scotland Act which allows devolved power to Scotland. Effectively, it would have to abolish the Scottish Assembly. That would spark an enormous constitutional crisis in the UK. It would also drive the chances of Scottish independence towards probable. Devolution - giving Scotland much more autonomy but not outright independence - took the wind out of the sails of full independence in the 1990s and this would put it right back in.My understanding is that (amusingly) England have to ask for Scotland's consent and Scotland can refuse to grant it, but that the term "consent" doesn't actually mean anything since it has literally no legal effect, no matter how the Scottish parliament responds. My reading (admittedly cursory) was that some overexcited journalists thought Scotland might have some kind of veto power, but that there weren't any* lawyers who thought so.
* With the usual lawyer caveat that they can argue for or against pretty much anything.
Cheers.
As I said - this was the way it was first reported, but then the journalists here just suddenly stopped talking about it. It seemed to me that they'd got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I saw one description of the situation being that England has to ask Scotland but doesn't have to pay any attention to what it says (which did amuse me, I must admit - so maybe I just hoped that was the case :p).
It seems to me this is something the Exit crowd should be concerned about. I find it much more plausible that the Scottish parliament would pursue this path than some of the other theories being bandied about.
It is a shame that nobody has the guts to say "NO!!! This is a terrible idea! It cause more problems than it fixes! We will not do it!" and "veto" the referendum.
It is a shame that nobody has the guts to say "NO!!! This is a terrible idea! It cause more problems than it fixes! We will not do it!" and "veto" the referendum.
They did, before the vote, and nobody (or not as many people as needed) listened.
Such a proposition isn't confirmed, but would be in line with the EU stance (not only the french one) :
1) either UK accept the standard package of EEA already held by Norway, Iceland, etc. and get full access to the common market in exchange for full acceptance of its rules, including Financial services (in short, EEA is a club of the countries that held a referendum before entry in EU, got "no" as a result, and picked the next best thing).
Silver lining : good for economy, UK would pay 9 % less than today to EU.
Bitter pill : in effect, UK would be MORE bound to european rules than it is today, and would have no say on the making of new ones, which it would have to swallow whole. Also, the package include the Schengen common borders thingie, which means MORE foreigners and less border control than UK has got today. Politically difficult, as it is going against what the Brexit vote is all about.
2) either it doesn't want or can't take the whole package, and it can't get full and urestricted access to the common market, which means lots and lots of specific agreements related to such and such type of goods or services.
There is a common thing in the déclarations of all european leaders, and it is that there will be no cherry-picking.
In effect, UK can't be out and get all the advantages of EU membership without getting the related constraints. It's no trolling, just a plain old truth : there is no free lunch, you can't get both a cake and the money to buy it... even if it is precisely what was promised by BoJo and Farage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, no matter what happens, the UK is screwed.
Also I do not see at all what France would gain from this
It hurts the english. Do they need another reason?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I do not see at all what France would gain from this. We already have trouble dealing with the migrants who want to reach the UK when it is still part of the EU and this would make the situation even worse. Also Germany is far more likely to get the City's financial activities than France is
France has a strong incentive to make the terms for Brexit as harsh as possible to stave off any serious discussion of a Frexit.
Especially the terms for a hypothetical Brexit -- if Britain can be scared into dropping the idea of leaving prior to issuing an Article 50 declaration, the issue never really comes up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking news: BoJo is NOT standing in the party leadership contest... Interesting!
I would hope that whatever happens, the majority of the UK would at least agree to a BOGON*-free government.
* Free of BOris Johnson, Michael GOve, and Nigel Farage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Daily Mail front page is about how Europe is beginning to crack, since a French minister (Sapin, Finance) and the Finnish Deputy PM has said there could be a trade deal and we could have control of it's borders. Of course what that trade deal might be in that case isn't mentioned.
It's mostly wishful thinking, alas.
Michel Sapin's speech was only about the Touquet agreement (the one by which the UK border was put on the french side of the Channel, at Calais instead of Dover) which is not tied to UK membership in EU. It would be uncouth and ungentlemanly of us to unleash now the "migratory hordes" on UK (but some major right-wing players and candidates to the coming presidential elections are known to favor its revocation ; so, not now, but maybe next year).
It is not about future relationships at all, and in particular not about free passage of people in general.
And of course, UK can have a trade agreement ! the question is, which one and what would be the economical and/or political price to pay. Nothing is free.
It's not that its EU partners are mad at UK or can't feel the pain, but giving away all the nice bits of membership without any price tag would simply lead to the disintegration of EU for everybody (what the point of being in, if you get a better deal out ?). UK chose to leave the party early, so be it ; it doesn't mean that all other people have to cut the music.
EDIT : another Michel Sapin declaration, yesterday : "La perte du passeport bancaire qui permet aux banques implantées à Londres d'intervenir dans l'Union est la conséquence obligée et obligatoire du Brexit" ("the loss of the Financial passport is a mandatory consequence of brexit"). It seems that the price tag of this particular offer is the City.
Breaking news: BoJo is NOT standing in the party leadership contest... Interesting!I would hope that whatever happens, the majority of the UK would at least agree to a BOGON*-free government.
* Free of BOris Johnson, Michael GOve, and Nigel Farage.
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
It's not a surprise Boris has decided to back off being leader. He obviously wants the role, but he equally knows that if he becomes leader he has to deal with the consequences...which involve hardship for the British people pretty much regardless of what happens now, and he's the most visible political face of Brexit (Farage is, and always will be, a horrifyingly racist joke). If he goes through with it and makes things worse, or backs down and looks weaker and dumber than usual, he looses. Like Cameron himself, the only way to win this game is to not play at all. In Boris' case, that means letting some other poor soul take the position and the flack and steal the position once the blame has shifted to them.
Breaking news: BoJo is NOT standing in the party leadership contest... Interesting!
Definitely interesting.
I guess he read the tea leaves and didn't think there was a positive result in the offing?
Now, when -- and I'm thinking it's more likely "when" than "if" -- it all goes wahooni-shaped, his hands are clean because he wasn't involved in the negotiations that shattered the UK and destroyed the City.
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
Wouldn't that risk exiling them to your country?
Wouldn't that risk exiling them to your country?
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
I'm British. But no, I was thinking of a small, unmanned island near a polar bear colony.
I'm British. But no, I was thinking of a small, unmanned island near a polar bear colony.Wouldn't that risk exiling them to your country?
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
That's cold!!!
~grins and runs~
I'm British. But no, I was thinking of a small, unmanned island near a polar bear colony.Wouldn't that risk exiling them to your country?
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
I was afraid you had Scotland in mind ! It certainly fit the "angry" and "cold" part.
Just pulling your leg...
I'm British. But no, I was thinking of a small, unmanned island near a polar bear colony.Wouldn't that risk exiling them to your country?
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
I was afraid you had Scotland in mind ! It certainly fit the "angry" and "cold" part.
Just pulling your leg...
I don't think he is that mean.
The Daily Mail front page is about how Europe is beginning to crack, since a French minister (Sapin, Finance) and the Finnish Deputy PM has said there could be a trade deal and we could have control of it's borders. Of course what that trade deal might be in that case isn't mentioned.It's mostly wishful thinking, alas.
Michel Sapin's speech was only about the Touquet agreement (the one by which the UK border was put on the french side of the Channel, at Calais instead of Dover) which is not tied to UK membership in EU. It would be uncouth and ungentlemanly of us to unleash now the "migratory hordes" on UK (but some major right-wing players and candidates to the coming presidential elections are known to favor its revocation ; so, not now, but maybe next year).
It is not about future relationships at all, and in particular not about free passage of people in general.
And of course, UK can have a trade agreement ! the question is, which one and what would be the economical and/or political price to pay. Nothing is free.
It's not that its EU partners are mad at UK or can't feel the pain, but giving away all the nice bits of membership without any price tag would simply lead to the disintegration of EU for everybody (what the point of being in, if you get a better deal out ?). UK chose to leave the party early, so be it ; it doesn't mean that all other people have to cut the music.
Oh, I know. But the Daily Mail is feeding this to it's readers who are lapping it up. You should see the comments on that page (actually, I advise reading any comments page with caution). It's largely to the effect that the EU is about to bow down before Britain and ask how it can serve us, when we'll deign to allow you to continue to trade with us (on our terms, of course).
What worries me is how when it doesn't happen that way the message that it's all the EU being vindictive and absolutely not a reasonable response to our decisions is going to...
Scapegoating it all on EU is a way to cope, I guess. And people able to believe in the steamy stream of BS fed them by BoJo/Gove/Farage during the campaign could very well gobble it up too, without batting an eye.
But a newspaper printing hogwash is of no real consequence (look at The Sun ; it had done so for years). It would only be bad if UK leadership began to believe in that sort of vindicative rhetoric. It would certainly dispel all the goodwill it has left on the continent, real quick.
|
Scapegoating it all on EU is a way to cope, I guess. And people able to believe in the steamy stream of BS fed them by BoJo/Gove/Farage during the campaign could very well gobble it up too, without batting an eye.
The EU has always been blamed as the cause of all the UK's problems.
I have no reason to believe that will change when (if?) the UK leaves.
Especially if we join the EEA; that would turn a tragedy into a farce.
I am no expert, but I don't see either Berlin or Paris becoming a financial Mekka of Europe. Amsterdam, though, might have a shot at it.
|
I don't understand the all or nothing part. Why wouldn't the UK make deals similar to the US, trade with minimal tariffs>, and no real control over the US sovereignty> Also, I have a hard time seeing the UE pushing TIPP with the US, and leaving out the separated UK.
Of coarse, with the nominees of both major American political parties stating free trade may not be so free in the future, you could make an argument tariffs may soon rise, and TIPP won't be passed any time soon. Even so, Germany sales a lot of cars to the UK, so tariffs aren't going to be too high.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the all or nothing part. Why wouldn't the UK make deals similar to the US, trade with minimal tariffs>, and no real control over the US sovereignty>
The real question is why the EU would make the kind of deal you seem to have in mind.
The deal you just described basically gives the UK all the benefits of being in the EU, but none of the responsibilities. Actually, that's pretty close to the deal that the UK already gets -- it shoulders about 1/3 of its share of the costs of the EU, is not required to follow the vast majority of EU policies, is not part of the Schengen shared-border arrangement, and is even permitted to keep its own currency.
The fundamental principles of the EU in its current form are the free movement of four different resources: goods, labor, services, and capital. Basically, this means that, in exchange for the right of British banks to offer financial services to companies in France or Poland, Polish and/or French citizens have the right to take jobs in the UK.
For example, right now, UK companies can't trade on US-based stock exchanges. If for some reason I want to buy shares in BT Group or GlaxoSmithKline, I can't actually do it through my broker -- I need instead to buy ADRs (which are not only less convenient, but less flexible, and don't actually give me share ownership). There are all sorts of products that UK banks aren't allowed to offer in the United States unless they set up a US subsidiary (which, of course, is subject to US regulation). By contrast, a Maltese can just call his broker and buy actual shares of BT Group and can get a mortgage from the Royal Bank of Scotland as easily as from the Bank of Malta -- and a lot more easily than he can get one from a US-only bank.
The British financial industry makes a hell of a lot of money off of this arrangement. Britain is exempt from a lot of the actual EU banking regulations (which means that financial firms can do things in London they'd not be allowed to do in France, increasing their profitability), but at the same time can offer their services anywhere in the EU. That's the best of both worlds, and (as you can imagine), the French and German banks aren't entirely happy about it.
Why should the UK be offered a better deal for threatening to leave then the already-divisive one they currently have (and rejected)? More to the point, what's the French incentive for offering such a deal?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the all or nothing part. Why wouldn't the UK make deals similar to the US, trade with minimal tariffs>, and no real control over the US sovereignty>
Here's a more detailed analysis, courtesy of Johnathan Powell and the Guardian:
The referendum was a vote against something but it wasn’t a vote for anything. It tells us nothing about the new relationship people want with Europe. The Brexiteers never told us what they collectively stood for. Some were for becoming Norway, still inside the single market; others, like Johnson, for becoming Canada, with a free trade agreement with the EU; and still others, like Nigel Lawson, were for opting out of all agreements and relying just on World Trade Organisation rules. Now they realise that services, about 80% of our economy, would be largely excluded from any Canada-style deal, they are drifting towards the Norwegian option.But that would require us to continue to accept free movement of people, to make a payment to the EU roughly equivalent to the net amount we contribute at the moment, and to implement the rules and regulations of the union without having any say in the making of those rules. Such an option will bring down on them the wrath of their erstwhile supporters. Johnson’s line during the campaign that he was in favour of having our cake and eating it too doesn’t look so funny now.
So there are three realistic models on the table:
Norway (accept the "four freedoms" but don't get a say in EU rules), Canada (negotiated trade agreement, but not extending as far as complete freedom; this is the status the US has as well), or Uganda (no specifically negotiated trade agreements but WTO rules.) I guess there's a fourth (Algeria, not even a WTO member), but no sane person would want to be outside the WTO entirely.
None of those models are (IMHO, and most economists' opinions) as good as what the UK already has, from a standpoint of economic growth and development.
I don't think he is that mean.I'm British. But no, I was thinking of a small, unmanned island near a polar bear colony.Wouldn't that risk exiling them to your country?
I know I'd vote for any leader that promised to exile those three to somewhere cold, harsh and full of angry predators.
I was afraid you had Scotland in mind ! It certainly fit the "angry" and "cold" part.
Just pulling your leg...
I am entirely that mean, but I used to live near the Scottish border. I know Scotland would be mean back. And I know what's under the kilts...
It's been fascinating to see the brutal backstabbing and viciousness with which Gove stabbed Boris in the back, even leaking documents earlier to try and make it look like he was being all reluctant to do so but feeling it's for the best, as Boris isn't the man for the job.
He isn't, but the neither is a backstabbing goit like Gove.
So Gove stole a huge chunk of his support and left Boris flailing. I'd feel bad for Boris, watching his hopes and dreams crash and burn, but I suspect that this is just a temporary setback, and he'll return to try and a bumble**** the country once more at some future date.
There are politicians on both sides that could be put on trial for treason/high-treason toward the nation and her people. The government is sitting on several metaphorical powder kegs, so is the monarchy to some extents, buy nowhere as badly as the elected government.I would love to see the people responsible for the lies that led to this mess held accountable.Well, to some extent, they are.
*stuff*
I imagine The Queen is not amused.
I've got to find that meme and start retweeting it. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will pop in and point out - the stock markets have pretty much recovered from their drop on Friday & Monday. So - the only real effect (at this point) on the stock markets was that a lot of foolish people sold their stock in the short downturn and lost money. :P (which is true of pretty much every short-term downturns)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will pop in and point out - the stock markets have pretty much recovered from their drop on Friday & Monday.
I'm not quite sure that's true when you account for units. The FTSE tracks prices of equities valued in nominal pounds sterling.
In other words, my stock portfolio that was worth 100,000 quid two weeks ago is probably worth about 100,000 quid today.
But the pound itself is down roughly 15% against the US Dollar. So my portfolio that was worth $150,000 two weeks ago is now worth about $130,000.